Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, giving a clear safety profile. The description adds the specific return fields (URL, endpoint, counts, hash), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, caching, or error behavior. With annotations covering safety, the description provides moderate but not comprehensive context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary verb and resource, then lists distinct output elements. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description lists the key return components, which is sufficient for a low-complexity, zero-parameter tool. The phrase 'content counts' is somewhat vague (unclear which content types are counted), but for a simple status/info tool, the overall completeness is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides 100% coverage trivially. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly omits parameter details since there are none to document.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns site-level metadata (canonical URL, MCP endpoint, content counts, content hash) using the verb 'Return' and the resource 'site information'. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling content tools like get_article or search_site by focusing on site-level status rather than content retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions. The description implies it is for retrieving site-level information, and the context of sibling tools makes this inference natural, but there is no direct statement of use cases or when to avoid it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.